Breaking Free of Self-Abuse-Why? How?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I got a 7.2V Lithium Black&Decker Drill/Driver, a gallon jar of mixed nuts,
black Champion sweat paints, and a chess book, Garry Kasparov on Garry
Kasparov part I: 1973-1985. How about you?

I got a jumper , a pair of jeans, addidas toiletry and hiking socks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont see how the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its potency is dependent upon
whether Christ is God Almighty or not, for it propitiates regardless of these claims.

i dont see how the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its potency is dependent upon whether Christ if God Almighty or not, for it propitiates regardless of these claims.

If it were not important then I don't think the New Testament would have mentioned that the church is redeemed by God's blood:

"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God, which He obtained through His own blood." (Acts 20:28)

The church of God was obtained through the blood of God. That means that the man Jesus Christ must have been, and is, God incarnate as a man.

Originally posted by jaywill


i dont see how the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its potency is dependent upon whether Christ if God Almighty or not, for it propitiates regardless of these claims. [/quote]

If it were not important then I don't think the New Testament would have mentioned that the church is redeemed by God's blood:

e heed to yourselves of God. That means that the man Jesus Christ must have been, and is, God incarnate as a man

I dont think so, especially after Paul states that the head of the congregation is Christ
and the head of the Christ is God. The ransom sacrifice is open to all, even those who
are not yet Christians, for God loved the world (those that are at present alienated
from God) that he gave his only begotten son, that all those exercising faith in him,
might not be destroyed, but have everlasting life. Paul states that God loved us first,
while we were yet sinners, thus its not dependent upon Christ being the almighty at all,
but on Gods love and our appreciation for that sin atoning sacrifice, that now opens the
prospect of reconciliation with God on its basis, the forgiveness of sins, a cleansed
conscience and the prospect of everlasting life. Am i to de denied the merits of that
sacrifice because I do not profess that Christ is God? i dont think Gods love is so
mean as to exclude me, when clearly its so far reaching and without condition other
than exercising faith in it, that its open to anyone who cares enough about it.

Originally posted by jaywill

i dont see how the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and its potency is dependent upon whether Christ if God Almighty or not, for it propitiates regardless of these claims.

If it were not important then I don't think the New Testament would have mentioned that the church is redeemed by God's blood:

[b]"Take heed to yourselves ...[text shortened]... of God. That means that the man Jesus Christ must have been, and is, God incarnate as a man.

Sorry jaywill but the Watchtower has beaten you to that verse. They have
already changed Acts 20:28 in their NWT to read:

Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit
has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which
he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sorry jaywill but the Watchtower has beaten you to that verse. They have
already changed Acts 20:28 in their NWT to read:

Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit
has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which
he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

As you cannot read Greek you have no way of knowing what the verse states, have
you, sad, but true fact, pity all you can do is take it upon trust from the biased
translators of Christendom who have tampered with the ancient text because of their
religious bias, but, how would you know any different, you cant read Greek, but those
of us who can, know what they have done and why they have done it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sorry jaywill but the Watchtower has beaten you to that verse. They have
already changed Acts 20:28 in their NWT to read:

Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit
has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which
he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

oh dear oh dear,

1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F.
Fenton, London.

1950 “with the blood of his own [Son]” New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English, Version, American Bible
Society, New York.

Did these translators also change the verse RJH????

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear oh dear,

1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F.
Fenton, London.

1950 “with the blood of his own [Son]” New World Translation of the Christian
Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English, Version, American Bible
Society, New York.

Did these translators also change the verse RJH????

It appears they have. But you claim to know Greek. So is the word "son"
there in the original Greek text?

P.S. The version of the Greek text I have only speaks of God and it ends
with "his own blood" with no son mentioned.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It appears they have. But you claim to know Greek. So is the word "son"
there in the original Greek text?

P.S. The version of the Greek text I have only speaks of God and it ends
with "his own blood" with no son mentioned.

One problem with making people feel guilty about masturbation: A study of hypnosis shows people who have some habit, like smoking, when hypnotized to try to stop that activity, find they simply subvert the previous habit into something else, the original habit has only been diverted. The same happens with something as fundamental as masturbation. You might have some effect of stopping that activity but you accomplish exactly nothing as far as promoting mental health, the subversion of masturbation into some kind of religious taboo makes it divert to other habits, and probably a lot worse, maybe drinking on the sly, smoking, (tell me smoking is better for you than masturbation) and so forth. The repression of sexual feelings will just produce sexual deviance or other traits you don't want.

That is one of the problems with religions getting into the bedroom lives of people. The people starting that don't have a clue what they are starting, what effects down the road such repressions will have on the general populous. They are playing with fundamental forces they have no clue about, just religious BS with no actual data as to what happens down the road. A clue: Catholic priests and little boys. Tell me that has nothing to do with sexual repression.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One problem with making people feel guilty about masturbation: A study of hypnosis shows people who have some habit, like smoking, when hypnotized to try to stop that activity, find they simply subvert the previous habit into something else, the original habit has only been diverted. The same happens with something as fundamental as masturbation. You might ...[text shortened]... clue: Catholic priests and little boys. Tell me that has nothing to do with sexual repression.

Maybe you should refer this to robbie carrobie for I have already
admitted that I masturbate when the need arises and I have no
woman ready, willing, and available.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe you should refer this to robbie carrobie for I have already
admitted that I masturbate when the need arises and I have no
woman ready, willing, and available.

I was thinking of this in general religious terms, any religion that represses it will invariably lead to other habits due to the repression.

Look at muslims, the sexual repression going on there is frightening and most christian religions have sexual taboo's and so forth, some not even allowing dancing, an activity from the dawn of human time. How could such repression NOT lead to other disturbing behaviors?

The gist: religions should keep their proclamations out of the bedroom, those so-called religious based edicts should never be allowed to control our bedroom lives outside the church or synagogue or mosque.

It is simply one more indication of the general idea of religion being based on man made drives to control other men and particularly to control women, to keep them down as far as possible. Even today in the 21'st century women are not equal to men. A large part of that comes from religious edicts, such as the verse in the bible saying a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman 35.

A real god would care less how we act in the bedroom.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont think so, especially after Paul states that the head of the congregation is Christ
and the head of the Christ is God. The ransom sacrifice is open to all, even those who
are not yet Christians, for God loved the world (those that are at present alienated
from God) that he gave his only begotten son, that all those exercising faith in hi ...[text shortened]... ondition other
than exercising faith in it, that its open to anyone who cares enough about it.

Am i to de denied the merits of that sacrifice because I do not profess that Christ is God? i dont think Gods love is so mean as to exclude me, when clearly its so far reaching and without condition other than exercising faith in it, that its open to anyone who cares enough about it.

I acknowledge that it is easy to believe into Christ for salvation. Even if one is not very clear about some things, he believes into a union in his innermost being with Christ -

"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

This is an "organic" union of Christ with the believer. This is not mere mental agreement. This is receiving Christ Himself in a form in which Christ is available to be dispensed into our being.

Like Thomas, why would we not want to confess Him then as our Lord and our God ?

"Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.

Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God !

Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:27-29)

Thomas's confession agrees with Paul's exhortation. So why would we be trying to see what we could AVOID confessing, and we could AVOID believing rather than simply confessing and believing along with the New Testament ?

It is not a matter being mean. It is a matter of God being definite. Paul says that the church was obtained through God's own blood. The words of Christ in Revelation confirm that He, who went into death and came out in resurrection, is Jehovah God, the First and the Last:

"And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead; and He placed His right hand on me, saying, Do not fear; I am the First and the Last and the living One; and I became dead, and behold I am living forever and ever; and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Rev. 1:17,18)

"The First and the Last" has always been Jehovah God Himself.

"Thus says Jehovah the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts, I am the First and I am the Last, and apart from Me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)

The church is obtained through the blood of God incarnate, in Jesus Christ, because it was "the First and the Last" Who became dead and is the living One with keys of death and of Hades. The church is obtained through the blood of God, as Paul taught, because apart from Jehovah, the First and the Last "there is no God".

So why should the believing disciple seek to see what he does not have to accept about the incarnation ? This could be dangerous not because of God being "mean" or narrow, but because of God being definite.

Rather than hedging your bets on what you can get away with NOT believing, why not accept and confess that Jehovah the First and the Last is the One who died on the cross for your sins and rose again ? "Do not fear ..." this One told John.

Originally posted by jaywill
uote] Am i to de denied the merits of that sacrifice because I do not profess that Christ is God? i dont think Gods love is so mean as to exclude me, when clearly its so far reaching and without condition other than exercising faith in it, that its open to anyone who cares enough about it. [/quote]

I acknowledge that it is easy to belinto[ your sins and rose agai"Do not fear ..." One told Joh

I am sorry Jaywill, my attention span is fairly small, I generally do not read anything
past a few paragraphs and i have no desire to get into another, fruitless, futile and
pointless debate that Christ is God, the scriptures make it very clear that he is not and
the whole premise that he is, rests on a few ambiguous texts, mistranslated with a bias
towards a dogma incorporated into Christianity somewhere between the 4th and the
eight centuries and from pagan sources.

Gods love is not so mean to exclude anyone who wishes to take hold of it, to place
limitations upon it, to me, is simply unacceptable.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It appears they have. But you claim to know Greek. So is the word "son"
there in the original Greek text?

P.S. The version of the Greek text I have only speaks of God and it ends
with "his own blood" with no son mentioned.

It does not appear in the original text that is why, unlike the snake translators of
Christendom who sneak their words in, we have and always do put these words in
parenthesis. Never the less we have good grounds for doing so , as these other
translators also recognised.

The Greek words (tou idiou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire
expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular
number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his
only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New
Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving
[idios] something should be said about the use of [ho idios] without a noun
expressed. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to
near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible
encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the
blood of one who was his own.’”

Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol.,
2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: “it is by no means
impossible that [huiou, of the Son] dropped out after [tou idiou, of his own] at
some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion
leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sorry Jaywill, my attention span is fairly small, I generally do not read anything
past a few paragraphs and i have no desire to get into another, fruitless, futile and
pointless debate that Christ is God, the scriptures make it very clear that he is not and
the whole premise that he is, rests on a few ambiguous texts, mistranslated with a ...[text shortened]... ne who wishes to take hold of it, to place
limitations upon it, to me, is simply unacceptable.

I am sorry Jaywill, my attention span is fairly small, I generally do not read anything past a few paragraphs and i have no desire to get into another, fruitless, futile and pointless debate that Christ is God, the scriptures make it very clear that he is not and

I don't believe that there is anything deficient about your attention span.
Now if you don't want to read the honest, truthful biblical support of Acts 20:28 I would think that that is your own loss.

the whole premise that he is, rests on a few ambiguous texts, mistranslated with a bias towards a dogma incorporated into Christianity somewhere between the 4th and the eight centuries and from pagan sources.

Isaiah chapter 9 was written long long before the 4th and 8th century A.D. by a Jewish prophet of God.

And there the Mighty God becomes a born human child. And there the Eternal Father becomes the given Son.

Gods love is not so mean to exclude anyone who wishes to take hold of it, to place limitations upon it, to me, is simply unacceptable.

I am just saying that the Bible says Jehovah the First and the Last is man's Redeemer in death and in resurrection.

The First and the Last is Jehovah God who became DEAD and is alive again with the keys of death and of Hades.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It does not appear in the original text that is why, unlike the snake translators of
Christendom who sneak their words in, we have and always do put these words in
parenthesis. Never the less we have good grounds for doing so , as these other
translators also recognised.

The Greek words (tou idiou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The e ...[text shortened]... ng documents. [b]Its insertion
leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.”[/b]

J.N. Darby's footnote is that "the blood of His own" is how he also reads it. And he translated the entire Bible from Hebrew and Greek.

HOWEVER, Darby had absolutely no hesitation to believe Christ is God incarnate. But I acknowledge that "the blood of His own" was his prefered rendering of that verse. And the same footnote in his New Translation said that the Deity of Christ was the foundation of the Christian faith.

Does it [ "the blood of His own" ] change that Christ is the First and the Last and Jehovah is the First and the Last ?

So "the blood of His own" or "His own blood," STILL means the blood of the First and the Last - JEHOVAH.